MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740303211 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v9n4p89

How Does Strong Experiential Marketing Affect the Customer Value?

2017· article· en· W2740303211 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ananta Budhi Danurdara, Nurdin Hidayah, Anwari Masatip

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingExperiential learningBusinessSample (material)Loyalty business modelLoyaltyValue (mathematics)Structural equation modelingAffect (linguistics)Data collectionRelationship marketingCustomer satisfactionSoftware deploymentJavaAdvertisingMarketing managementService (business)Computer scienceService qualityPsychologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research objective is to get empirical evidences as well as to elucidate the phenomenon so that conclusion can be drawn concerning the implementation of Experiential Marketing in Creating Customer Value at stars’ hotel of 3, 4 and 5 in West Java, Indonesia. This study uses quantitative approach and Structural Equation Modeling was conducted to test the hypothesis. To meet the adequacy of the data, it was decided to have sample of 210 respondents, consisting of hotel customers who were room occupants of 3, 4, and 5 star hotels in the West Java province. Collection of field data in order to obtain primary data was done through observation, deployment questionnaires, interviews and search and collecting documents. The results confirmed the importance of experiential marketing implementation since it can increase customer value, and it also has implications for customer loyalty.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207